After Jean Cocteau had read some of Genet's writings, recognized his
genius, and organized a petition for his pardon, Genet was released from
jail, where he was serving a life sentence for repeated theft. He pretty much
abandoned his previous life of theft and lived off his writings. But as these
writings show, he never fully abandoned his quest to be evil. There is one
major difference, however. Now this quest existed almost solely in the
realm of the imaginary. Or of art. From the playings of Genet's perverse
imagination, or as Sartre points out, from Genet's fantasizing while
masturbating, great works of art emerged. But these works described and
glorified the kingdom of Evil. Genet assumed the role of an official scribe
of this kingdom. In short, Genet never turned to the Good, even when he
was accepted, lauded, and applauded by the right-thinking man, that is, by
the society of the Good.

Was Genet then redeemed? Or did he merely attempt to drag us all into
the filth of the sticky swamp where he suffered and flourished so that we
could admire, with him, the beauty of his Evil heroes? Both questions can
be answered immediately by saying, Yes. But that Yes must be qualified.
To understand why, let us look more closely.

According to Sartre, Genet drifted slowly from this ethics of Evil to a
black aestheticism, and from this black aestheticism to being an artist. At
first this drifting led to his second metamorphosis: delighting in the beauty
he discerned in evil persons and situations, and expressing this beauty in
haunting verse. But this metamorphosis was not yet a full redemption. To
understand why, we must follow the slow development of Genet.

Print this page

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary
to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution.
We are sorry for any inconvenience.